Effective Courtroom Advocacy: Resonance in the Practice of Law, Part Three

Resonance in the Practice of Law, Part Three: The Courtroom

Every lawyer comes to court with a plan. At least, every lawyer should. We know the issues we want to emphasize, the evidence we want to highlight, the weaknesses we want to expose, and the result we are asking the court to grant.

But court is not a monologue.

Judges ask questions. They interrupt. They redirect. They signal interest in one issue and impatience with another. They take careful notes on some points and little or none on others. A question that appears to pull us away from our prepared path may reveal the very concern that must be answered before our argument can land.

A lawyer must be ready for this.

There is a temptation, especially when time is limited, to think: “I have my submissions, and I need to get through them.” That instinct is understandable. There are points the court must hear, and counsel cannot abandon the structure of the argument every time a question is asked.

But it is usually costly to reject a judge’s question. The court is telling us something. The judge may be revealing a concern, a misunderstanding, a possible route to decision, or a barrier that must be addressed. If we ignore that cue, we may preserve the shape of our argument while losing the opportunity to persuade.

The better task is to do both: answer the court and still get to where the case needs to go.

That requires courtroom flexibility. We need to know our argument well enough that we are not dependent on our notes in the order they were written. We need to understand which points are essential and which are supporting. We need to hear the court’s concern, respond directly, and then find our way back to the core structure of the case.

Make the Case Legible

One of the most important things a lawyer can do in court is make the information easy to receive. The lawyer’s task is not simply to add more information to the pile. It is to make the information legible.

In resonance terms, legibility is part of making a response possible. The court cannot be moved by what it cannot see, follow, or place within the structure of the dispute. If the client’s story is buried inside volume, disorder, or unnecessary detail, it does not properly reach the decision-maker. The lawyer’s role is to give the material a form in which the court can receive it, test it, and respond to it.

That means structure. It means clear issue framing. It means telling the court where we are going before we go there. It means distinguishing between what is background, what is disputed, what is proven, and what actually matters for the order being requested. It means not treating every fact as equally important.

Judges are dealing with high volumes of material, limited time, and competing demands. In family law especially, the record can be dense and emotionally charged. There may be financial statements, affidavits, text messages, parenting allegations, income disputes, support calculations, property claims, offers, prior orders, and long histories between the parties.

The lawyer’s task is not simply to add more information to the pile. It is to make the information legible.

That means structure. It means clear issue framing. It means telling the court where we are going before we go there. It means distinguishing between what is background, what is disputed, what is proven, and what actually matters for the order being requested. It means not treating every fact as equally important.

At the same time, advocacy cannot be reduced to administrative neatness. The lawyer must also show why the issue matters. The goal is not only to make the case easy to follow, but to make its significance clear.

There is a balance here. If the presentation is too dense, the court may struggle to find the path. If it is too simplified, the court may miss the force of the issue. Good advocacy makes the matter both understandable and compelling.

The clearer we are about the client’s story, the easier it becomes to organize the case around what matters. The courtroom presentation should be the disciplined expression of the file’s underlying structure.

Reading the Court

Part of advocacy is watching what is happening and responding appropriately.

Is the judge taking notes on a particular point? Are they asking repeated questions about a factual issue? Do they seem concerned about jurisdiction, credibility, proportionality, disclosure, timing, or the practical consequences of the order? Are they giving counsel room to develop the point, or signalling that the point has been made?

These cues matter.

They do not dictate our argument, but they inform its execution. There are times to press, and there are times to back off. There are points that require slowing down and taking the court carefully through the record. There are others where repetition will only dilute the argument. The lawyer has to answer the question asked, even when it is not the question they hoped to receive.

This is not simply reactivity. The lawyer is not merely following the court wherever it goes. Counsel must assist the court, but counsel must also advocate. That may mean respectfully returning the court to a point that has been missed. It may mean saying, in substance, “I appreciate the court’s concern, and I will address it directly, but the answer requires one further step.”

The point is not to be theatrical. The point is to be responsive without becoming lost.

Witnesses and the Give-and-Take of Testimony

Witness examination may be the most obvious courtroom example of resonance.

It is easy to describe examination-in-chief as instrumental. We need to elicit our client’s evidence. We need the factual record. We need the witness to explain what happened in a way the court can understand and rely on.

It is just as easy to describe cross-examination as adversarial. We may be seeking helpful admissions, exposing inconsistencies, testing reliability, challenging exaggeration, or building the foundation for a later submission.

Those descriptions are true as far as they go. But they are incomplete.

A witness examination is not simply the mechanical extraction of content. It is a live exchange. The witness answers in expected and unexpected ways. An objection may interrupt the flow. A question that looked clear on paper may produce confusion in the witness box. The witness may become defensive, evasive, overly talkative, or surprisingly helpful. The lawyer must listen, not merely wait to ask the next question.

In examination-in-chief, resonance may mean allowing the witness enough room to tell the story in a human way, while still maintaining structure. A witness who is over-controlled may sound rehearsed or flattened. A witness who is under-controlled may wander into irrelevance or damage the clarity of the evidence. The lawyer must guide without smothering.

In cross-examination, resonance may be even more delicate. Cross-examination is adversarial, but it is still relational. The witness’s answer tells us what the next question should be. The answer may open a door or close one. Pressing harder may expose the problem, or it may make the lawyer look unfair, and the witness look sympathetic. The best move may be to stop.

That judgment cannot be made entirely in advance. It has to be made in the moment.

Court Staff and the Working Institution

Court staff also deserve attention in this analysis. They are professionals carrying out essential roles within the justice system. They manage practical realities that lawyers sometimes take for granted.

Treating court staff with respect is not a matter of performance or convenience. It is part of understanding that the courtroom is not just a stage for lawyers. It is a working institution.

There are also ordinary human moments in court: before the matter is called, during breaks, while waiting for a courtroom to open, or when dealing with practical issues. Appropriate moments of courtesy and connection remind us that we are all participating in a system that depends on many people doing their jobs under pressure.

That system is one of our most important social goods. It should be treated that way.

Conclusion

Courtroom advocacy requires preparation, structure, and strategy. It also requires attention to relationship.

The lawyer must remain grounded in the client’s case while responding to the judge’s concerns, the witness’s evidence, and the practical reality of the courtroom. This is not a departure from advocacy. It is part of advocacy.

The court is not a place where counsel simply delivers prepared words into a neutral space. It is a live environment. The judge is listening, questioning, signalling, and deciding. Witnesses are responding. Counsel are adjusting. The file is moving.

A lawyer who can move with it, without losing the thread of the case, is better positioned to assist the court and serve the client. That is resonance in the courtroom: not softness, not drift, and not surrender, but disciplined responsiveness in the service of judgment.

The ideas discussed here will remain aspirational, unless experienced counsel are willing to accept that the “work” on a file always takes place in a broader context than the work itself. We must remain open to a broader view of judgment and discretion on complex matters.